MONTREAUX CONVENTION AND THE BOSPHORUS

§
To ask Her Majesty's Government what communications have been made
1037
by the Soviet Union to the other signatories of the Montreux Convention of 1936 about the passage through the Bosphorus of the warship "Kiev", which appears to be an aircraft carrier and thus debarred by the Convention from passing.

My Lords, the only communication of which I am aware is the notification under the Convention by the Soviet Union to the Turkish Government that an unnamed cruiser would transit the Straits in a Southward direction on 18th July.

My Lords, do the Government accept that this ship, which has a 600-foot long angled flight deck, and her superstructure to one side, and is capable of carrying—and apparently is carrying at the moment—some 35 fixed-wing aircraft, can be properly described as a cruiser?

My Lords, in modern terms it could be described as either; but we take the view that, very much on balance, it fits the description of an aircraft carrier. However, the Montreux provisions are not absolutely precise on definitions. After all, the Convention was 40 years ago. The Soviet officials themselves described the vessel to the notifiable authority, the Turkish Government, as an antisubmarine cruiser. That is why the Turkish Government acceded to its transit through the Straits.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords do the British Government regard the Montreux Convention as prohibiting aircraft carriers from passing through the Bosphorus; and did the Soviet Union even go through the motions of removing the aircraft and the fittings as an aircraft carrier before this warship passed through the Bosphorus?

My Lords, I do not know that they went through the motions of removing that equipment before sending the ship through the Bosphorus. The photographs would indicate that, whether they did so or not, they were very much there. On the first question, I think it is a matter for continuing discussion between us and our
1038
friends and allies as to the situation that arises in terms of the balance of power in the Mediterranean. NATO is properly concerned about the balance of power in the Mediterranean as in other theatres that concern it. On the political side, it is for us, as and when we consider it right, to consult the co-signatories, either all of them or some of them. This we have been doing and will continue to do. I do not think that anything could be gained by going at this question too early or too strongly.

My Lords, apart from my noble friend I can think of nothing immediately that would prevent the Russian vessels doing anything anywhere. This is a Convention of 1936 which was drawn in the light of the knowledge, technical and political, available to those who signed it at that time. It has served a very useful peaceful purpose since then. As a result of regrettable incidents like this it may be that it is time to look at it again. But, as I have said, we should not go at this too early or too strongly. I hope that my noble friend will curb his impatience for a short time.

My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in view of the latest round of defence cuts, whether it was by accident or design that there was an RAF Nimrod and a base in Malta from which to take the photographs we have seen.

My Lords, there was a Nimrod on the spot. For that, the noble Lord and myself should be rather gratified. As to the relationship of this matter to the proposed defence cuts, he knows better than anybody that it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree, since he has referred to discussions about the balance of power, that our authority in any discussions with our allies on this subject
1039
is bound to have been compromised by the decline in our defence position?

My Lords, under the Montreux Convention the Turkish Government was deputed to be the notifiable Government by any naval Power purporting to send a vessel through the Bosphorus, either out of the Black Sea or into the Black Sea. The Turks therefore exercise a power which, if they choose to say has been infringed, no doubt they will bring to the notice of the cosignatories to the Convention or some of them.

My Lords, if my noble friend has not already answered the Question—he may have answered it; but if he has not—why not refer this to the United Nations or the Security Council and ascertain how many friends we have in that establishment?

My Lords, as the Minister used the expression "regrettable", would he on reflection tell us what is regrettable about a Russian vessel of war passing through the Bosphorus with the permission of the Turkish Government, as opposed to the escape into Turkish waters with all the consequences of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" in the heyday of British Naval power, an event that came about entirely through the incompetence of the British Naval staff?

My Lords, certainly the first part of what my noble friend said has substance. What is regrettable is that notification was made in terms of a vessel described as a cruiser but which is clearly more describable as an aircraft carrier. We take the view that, under the Montreux Convention, an
1040
aircraft carrier is not in the class of vehicles which ought to be allowed transit. It would seem to us—and I hope that I am wrong—to have circumvented the spirit, if not the terms, of the Convention.

My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the same words can be used in relation to a proposal by Britain to build a through-deck cruiser which is an anti-submarine vessel, as this one is, armed with the Harrier; whereas this vessel has a considerable number of aircraft of a comparable class to an aircraft carrier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, except for the typical ignorance and hypocrisy that is expressed today.

My Lords, if my noble friend will look at what I said, he will see that I said that this vessel could be described as coming within either class. No doubt others could be so described. This is why I followed that remark by twice saying that it would be unwise to go at this too early and too strong.

My Lords, could the noble Lord say anything about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the other eleven aircraft carriers which are apparently under construction in Black Sea yards? Is he aware that the House will take much comfort from the half courage of his second last answer?

My Lords, I am not aware that there are that number under construction in the Black Sea. That is a point of fact which perhaps the noble Lord and I might discuss without engaging unduly in public speculation. As to what he said about the latter part of my remarks, it comes to this. Here is a Convention which in the context of 1936 and since has served the world well, and the Mediterranean world particularly. It may be that in the light of this incident and other facts, technological and political, of the modern world, we need to look at the position afresh. We should so so after due thought and not rush at it too early and, I repeat, too strongly.